Martin v. Muniz

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || GEORGE MARTIN, Case No. 17-01690 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 MOTION TO SCREEN 10 V. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE; ADDRESSING W. MUNIZ, et al., PENDING MOTIONS Defendants.

(Docket Nos. 128, 130, 134) M Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil ~ 18 || rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison |! officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). The Court °° || granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failing *! || to comply with Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil *? || Procedure (“FRCP”), and granted Plaintiff leave to amend to *3 || attempt to correct the deficiencies. (Docket No. 98.) Plaintiff ** || filed an amended complaint, (Docket No. 107), which the Court || screened and again dismissed for failure to comply with Rule || 18(a). (Docket No. 120.) Plaintiff filed a second amended | complaint. (Docket No. 129, hereinafter “SAC.”) Defendants || move for screening of the SAC. (Docket No. 134.) The motion || is GRANTED.

4 DISCUSSION || A. Background 6 At the outset of this action, the Court found the original || complaint stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth g || Amendment based on the allegation that Defendants acted with || deliberate indifference to his pain management and neurological || and orthopedic medical condition since 2007. (Docket No. 19 at || 2.) Subsequently in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the || Court found that Plaintiff's action was based on two different and || apparently unrelated medical issues: inadequate pain medication S 14 || (for his spinal condition) and vision care needs. (Docket No. 98 is || at 6.) In filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff was advised that || he was to limit the claims in this action to an Eighth Amendment || deliberate indifference claim regarding either his pain 1g || management or his vision care needs. (/d. at 7.) After screening || the amended complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff had again || failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) || because it included a variety of unrelated claims against different || Defendants. (Docket No. 120 at 3.) Plaintiff as granted one final || opportunity to file a second amended complaint that satisfies both || Rules 18(a) and 20(a). Ud. at 5.) Because it appeared that || Plaintiff wished to pursue the claim regarding his pain || management, the Court instructed him to limit the allegations in || the SAC to facts regarding his pain management and against only || those Defendants that were personally involved in his pain || management. (/d.)

3 Defendants move for screening of the SAC and assert that || the SAC includes a variety of unrelated allegations. (Docket No. || 134 at 2-3.) Plaintiff filed a reply, asserting that he has complied || with the court order and limited the allegations to pain || management. (Docket No. 136.) Plaintiff also asserts that the g || denial of corrective surgery for his orthopedic and neurological || injuries gave rise to the need of continuity of pain management || care treatment. (Martin Decl. 10, 13.)

11 || B. Analysis 21 Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: Dr. Kim R. || Kumar, MD; Dr. Darrin M. Bright, Tuan Anh Tran (pharmacist); S 14 || Dr. Eric Sullivan; Dr. Edward Miles Birdsong; Dr. Jennifer Villa; is || and Warden William Muniz. (SAC 9 4-11.) Plaintiff asserts 16 || two claims for relief: (1) Defendants acted with deliberate 17 || indifference in depriving him of adequate treatment for his pain ig || management for “neurological and orthopedic serious injuries,” i9 || particularly in light of the their failure to provide him with || corrective surgeries that would lower or eliminate such need, || (SAC ¥§] 66-67); and (2) a procedural due process claim under the || Fourteenth Amendment for the arbitrary termination of certain || pain medications that were prescribed to stabilize his injuries, (id. || 9] 68-69).

25 With respect to Plaintiff’s second claim for relief, the || Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause only applies to the || medical treatment provided to pretrial detainees, not to convicted || prisoners like Plaintiff. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 || F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 3 || 520, 535 (1979)). Accordingly, Plaintiff must challenge the || allegedly arbitrary decision to terminate pain medication under || the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court will liberally || construe that claim as being raised under the Eighth Amendment || rather than dismissing it for failure to state a claim under the g || Fourteenth Amendment. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, || 757 (9th Cir. 2003).

10 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may || properly join as many claims as he has against an opposing party.

12 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). But parties may be joined as defendants in || one action only “if any right to relief is asserted against them S 14 || jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising 15 || out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 146 || or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all || defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Put 1g || simply, claims against different parties may be joined together in || one complaint only if the claims have similar factual || backgrounds and have common issues of law or fact. Coughlin v. || Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350-51 (9th Cir. 1997).

22 The SAC does contain allegations that are not directly || related to the issue of his pain management at SVSP. For || example, Plaintiff again describes, as he did in the amended || complaint, Defendant Dr. Kumar’s actions related to Plaintiffs || pain medication while housed at the SATF-Corcoran! during || 2003, which are separate from the claims regarding his treatment || at SVSP. (SAC 9§ 14-16.) Although Defendant Kumar has since || become employed at SVSP and is a named defendant in this || action, it is highly doubtful that Plaintiff can pursue a claim || against Defendant Kumar for acts that occurred 16 years ago.

7 || Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges, among others, the following g || claims that are not strictly related to his pain management: the || claim that after he was transferred to SVSP in February 2007, he || was issued the wrong blood pressure medicine, (id. 420); the || claim that Plaintiff never received a CAT-scan that was ordered || in October 2008 by Dr. Kim at Mercy Hospital, (id. {| 28); the || claim that he did not receive treatment after an altercation in his S 14 || cell in July 2009, (id. § 30); the claim that Natividad Hospital is || withheld certain treatment for his neck and back at the orders of 46 || “SVSP-doctors” in July 2012, and only examined his lungs, (id. || §§ 35-36); the claim that Defendant Dr. Eric Sullivan denied him 1g || treatment after an assault on August 1, 2013, (id. 40-41); the i9 || claim that Defendant Warden W. Muniz submitted || documentation in a civil rights case stating that Plaintiff was || recetving appropriate medical care, which was “egregiously || incorrect,” (id. 4 43); and the claim that Defendant Bright had || Plaintiff removed from the emergency room at Natividad || Hospital on 10-01-17 although he was receiving beneficial || |'SATF-Corcoran refers to the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, California.

1 || treatment there and after he returned to prison, his condition || worsened, (id. § 57).

3 Liberally construed, the Court finds the SAC contains || sufficient facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim for || deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 1.e., Plaintiffs || chronic pain related to certain longstanding injuries to his neck || and back and the failure to provide corrective surgeries to address g || that pain. This claim is based on the allegations related to the || termination of certain types of medication, the form of the || medication prescribed (e.g., crush-float or liquid), and the || repeated denials of his requests for pain medication. Although || Plaintiff asserts that he included certain “contextual facts to || establish and deduce deliberate indifference” to his serious S 14 || medical needs, (SAC, Attach. at 5; SAC 9 15, 34), many of the is || allegations contained therein clearly go beyond providing mere 46 || context for his chronic pain management claim. See supra at 5.

5 17 Plaintiff has already been permitted two opportunities to file ig || an amended complaint in lieu of dismissal. In the interest of || justice, the Court will strike the portions of the SAC that raises || facts unrelated to his pain management while at SVSP.

21 || Specifically, the following paragraphs from the SAC shall be || stricken as containing facts that do not comply with Rules 18(a) || and 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 99 14-19; □ || 28-36; □□□ 40-47; 99 57-58. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue other, || unrelated claims, he must file them in a separate § 1983 action.

26 || /// || /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, 3 1. Defendants’ motion for a screening order of the SAC is || GRANTED. (Docket No. 134.)

5 2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma || pauperis (“IFP”), (Docket Nos. 128, 130), are DENIED as moot || since he was granted IFP status at the outset of this action. g || (Docket No. 20.) Plaintiffis advised that IFP status does not || entitle him to a complete waiver of filing fees. Rather, it means io || that funds for the filing fee will be taken from income to || Plaintiff's account in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(B)(1) || until the entire amount has been paid. (/d.)

13 3. This matter shall proceed on the Eighth Amendment S 14 || claim with respect to Plaintiff's pain management, including the is || denial of corrective surgery to address the chronic pain, at SVSP Zig against Defendants Dr. Kim R. Kumar, Dr. Darrin M. Bright, 17 || Tuan Anh Tran (Pharmacist), Dr. Edward Miles Birdsong, Dr. E.

5 ig || M. Birdsong, and Dr. Jennifer Villa.

19 The Clerk shall terminate Dr. Eric Sullivan and Warden W.

20 || Muniz from this action since the portions of the SAC containing || specific allegations against them have been stricken, and this || action therefore contains no cognizable claims against them.

23 4. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this || order is filed, Defendants shall file a motion for summary || judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in || the complaint found to be cognizable above.

27 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be || Supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform || in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3 || Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be || granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in || dispute. If any Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot || be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court || prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

8 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for || Summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff io || must be concurrently provided the appropriate warnings || under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en || bane). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012).

13 5. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be S 14 || filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than is || twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ motion is A 16 || filed.

17 Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules 1g || of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 i9 || (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come || forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on || every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that || failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary || judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to the || granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff || without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th || Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th 27 Cir. 1994).

1 6. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than || fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's opposition 1s filed.

3 7. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date || the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion || unless the Court so orders at a later date.

6 8. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court || must be served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once g || counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the || document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

10 9. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal || Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal || Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is required || before the parties may conduct discovery.

S 14 10. Itis Plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case.

3 is || Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address 16 || and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion.

17 || Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 1g || failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure |} 41(b).

20 11. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the || deadline sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a || showing of good cause.

23 This order terminates Docket Nos. 128, 130, and 134.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED. han || Dated: October 4, 2019 Rom thw mn) 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge || □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ screen sacsve